Jharkhand High Court

Narayan Kaibarta vs The State Of Jharkhand on 17 November, 2025

Author: Rajesh Kumar

Bench: Rajesh Kumar

                                               2025:JHHC:34344

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                Cr. Appeal (S.J) No.915 of 2004
                           ---------

[Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 18.05.2004, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan, in Sessions Trial No.89 of 2003, arising out of Gamharia P.S. Case No.06 of 2003, corresponding to G.R. No.47 of 2003]

---------

Narayan Kaibarta, son of Dhiren Kaibartha, Resident of village - Kamalpur, P.S. Gamharia, District - Saraikela, Kharsawan. ..... Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand ..... Respondent

---------

PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR

---------

For the Appellant : Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabir Kr. Chatterjee, Spl.P.P

---------

th Order No.10/ Dated: 17 November, 2025

1. Heard Mr. Samir Kumar Lall, learned counsel for the

appellant and Mr. Prabir Kumar Chatterjee, learned Special

P.P.

2. The present appeal is directed against the Judgment

of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2004,

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Seraikella-Kharsawan,

in Sessions Trial No.89 of 2003, arising out of Gamharia

P.S. Case No.06 of 2003 (G.R. No.47 of 2003), whereby the

appellant has been convicted under sections 324 & 498(A)

of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been directed to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years for the

offence under Section 324 IPC and two years rigorous

imprisonment for the offence under Section 498(A) I.PC.

                            -1-                Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.915 of 2004
                                            2025:JHHC:34344

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

3. The criminal law has been put into motion by lodging

an F.I.R being Gamharia P.S. Case No.06 of 2003 dated

25.01.2003 in the district Seraikella-Kharsawan. The F.I.R

has been lodged on the fardbeyan (Ext.-2) of informant

namely, Ganga Kaibarta (P.W.-2).

The prosecution case, as disclosed in the F.I.R., in

brief, is that the informant, Ganga Kaibarta (P.W.-2) is

married to accused Narayan Kaibarta. It has been alleged

that after 2½ years of her, she gave birth to a female child.

After that all the accused persons started torturing her in

different ways. She was assaulted at times and she was not

given meal on times. A Panchayati was also convened in the

village in which accused persons had undertaken to keep

her properly and a Panchanama was also prepared,

however, that could not help in improving their attitude

towards her. They continued their torture to her. On

25.01.2003, her husband started abusing her on the point

of preparing meal and on protest by her he gave bhujali

blow on her head as a result of which she fell down and

started raising alarm. Then, the accused drove her out

from the house and then she came to her father's house

and disclosed about the incident. She was taken to the

police station where she gave her statement and she was

also referred to hospital for treatment.

On the basis of said allegation, the F.I.R has been

lodged against three accused persons including the present

-2- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.915 of 2004 2025:JHHC:34344

appellant. The other two accused persons are her father-in-

law and mother-in-law. After the investigation, the charge-

sheet has been submitted under Sections 498(A), 307/ 34

I.P.C on 15.04.2003. Thereafter, cognizance has been taken

and charges have been framed under the aforesaid

Sections and the case has been committed to the court of

Sessions to which the accused persons including the

appellant have pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried.

4. To substantiate the prosecution story, the prosecution

has examined altogether 7 witnesses.

5. P.W.-1, Nandlal Kaibarta, is the father of the

informant. He has stated that the accused persons used to

torture his daughter for which a panchayati was also held.

6. P.W.-2, Ganga Kaibarta, is the informant of the case.

She has supported the case. In her cross-examination, she

has admitted that at the time of occurrence, she and her

husband were living in a old house and only her husband

had assaulted her on the day of occurrence.

7. P.W.-3, Janardan Kaibarta, is the brother of P.W.-1. He

is a hearsay witness.

8. P.W.-4, Surjo Kaibarta, is the maternal uncle of the

informant. He is related with the accused and has

supported the prosecution story.

9. P.W.-5, Sukhlal Kaibarta, is the neighbor and an

independent witness. He has stated that the accused were

torturing the informant by not giving her proper meal and

assaulting her.

                         -3-                Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.915 of 2004
                                           2025:JHHC:34344

10. P.W.-6, Upendra Singh, is the Investigating Officer.

He has stated that he had visited the place of occurrence

and no incriminating article has been found. In cross-

examination, he has admitted that the informant and her

husband used to live in a different house whereas the

father-in-law and mother-in-law used to live in a separate

house.

11. P.W.-7, Dr. Sujata Saha, is the doctor, who has

examined the injury over the informant. She has found the

injuries simple in nature, caused by hard and blunt

substance such as back side of bhujali.

12. The trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and

material available on record, has acquitted two accused

persons and found the present appellant, i.e., the husband,

guilty under Sections 324/ 498(A) of the Indian Penal Code.

Accordingly, the appellant has been convicted for the

offence punishable under Sections 324/ 498(A) of the

Indian Penal Code.

13. Referring to the above materials available on record,

the learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that :-

(I) the offence under Section 324 IPC is not

made out as no dangerous weapon has been used

and as such, the conviction under Section 324 IPC

is bad in law, rather the conviction should be

under Section 323 IPC.

(ii) the offence under Section 498(A) IPC is

also not made out as there is no danger to life

-4- Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.915 of 2004 2025:JHHC:34344

rather the injury suggests to be simple in nature,

caused by hard and blunt substance. But, as per

the occular evidence, bhujali has been used, then

it may be from the back-side of bhujali, i.e., butt.

(iii) there is no allegation of demand of dowry

or any valuable property.

(iv) further, the appellant has remained in

custody for about four months in custody, during

trial, and as such the sentencing part may be

reduced to the period already undergone by the

appellant.

14. On the other hand, learned Special P.P has supported

the judgment of conviction and order of sentence. It has

been submitted that a woman (informant) has been

harassed and the injury is also there, which has been

supported by the occular evidence also.

15. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and

from perusal of the record, it appears that :-

(a) the injury caused is simple in nature.

(b) although the allegation is regarding use of

bhujali, but it has been submitted that only the

back side, i.e., butt of bhujali has been used, which

gets corroboration by the medical report and as

such there is no any intention to cause any

grievous injury or it cannot be said that dangerous

weapon has been used.


        (c)      the appellant has remained in custody for



                        -5-                Cr. Appeal (SJ) No.915 of 2004
                                                          2025:JHHC:34344